Facilitating change in health-related behaviors and intentions: a randomized controlled trial of a multidimensional memory program for older adults<sup>†</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many older adults are concerned about memory changes with age and consequently seek ways to optimize their memory function. Memory programs are known to be variably effective in improving memory knowledge, other aspects of metamemory, and/or objective memory, but little is known about their impact on implementing and sustaining lifestyle and healthcare-seeking intentions and behaviors. METHODS: We evaluated a multidimensional, evidence-based intervention, the Memory and Aging Program, that provides education about memory and memory change, training in the use of practical memory strategies, and support for implementation of healthy lifestyle behavior changes. In a randomized controlled trial, 42 healthy older adults participated in a program (n = 21) or a waitlist control (n = 21) group. RESULTS: Relative to the control group, participants in the program implemented more healthy lifestyle behaviors by the end of the program and maintained these changes 1 month later. Similarly, program participants reported a decreased intention to seek unnecessary medical attention for their memory immediately after the program and 1 month later. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the use of multidimensional memory programs to promote healthy lifestyles and influence healthcare-seeking behaviors. Discussion focuses on implications of these changes for maximizing cognitive health and minimizing impact on healthcare resources.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".